The reason the press is given such broad freedoms in the United States is because our founders knew an informed citizenry was less likely to be misled by the government than any nation with state-run media. This is arguably their most prescient moment as the press holds exponentially more power today than it did in the days following our nation’s birth. But what happens when the press is working FOR the government, or to be more specific, doing the bidding of one political ideology that is prominent within the government? We get the rise of fake news and calls to limit the 1st Amendment.
I will not be echoing these calls, as that’s the second biggest danger with media continuing its leftward lurch away from reporting truth. The 1st Amendment must be upheld, and we must use the 2nd Amendment to do so if necessary. But that’s not the biggest risk that faces us with an over-powered press that is bolstered by over-powered tech giants who are equally progressive in their ideologies as the media companies they protect.
Yesterday’s debacle with the NY Times is one of the most ironic moments in recent media history. For once, the NY Times published an unbiased, factual headline detailing what President Trump said. The article itself was still a hit piece against him, but at least the headline didn’t delve into the propaganda model that has been adopted by legacy media companies like the NY Times, Washington Post, and CNN. Instead, it stated a fact and the left jumped all over them for it.
To the left, fake news is only actually fake news when it factually describes what happens and doesn’t attack Republicans or editorialize against the President.
Here is the original headline: “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism.”
It’s not inspiring. It’s not the type of headline that will make people change their minds, and if anything it’s about as milquetoast as journalism can get considering the emotion riding behind the mass shootings. But it was factual. Nevertheless, the left took it as a sign the NY Times had fallen prey to the vast right-wing conspiracy that’s trying to get Trump reelected. They must have been bought off by the Russians, one prominent radical noted. Even presidential candidates pounced. AOC chimed in, as always.
But here’s the problem in a nutshell, and you may be surprised to note that it’s far from the most outrageous portrayal of the NY Times headline:
Tomorrow's NYT print edition.
Not sure "TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM" is how I would have framed the story. pic.twitter.com/quOibXsp32
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 6, 2019
It’s not how he “would have framed the story.”
It’s subtle. It’s also extremely dangerous because this is what we’ve become. This is what America has become. We are no longer consumers of news even though we have unprecedented access to it. We’re consumers of news bits. Headline junkies. Even if the story itself was not flattering of the President, the headline alone was deemed dangerous to the left and worthy of literal protests against the NY Times because they didn’t frame the story the way the radical progressives would have directed them to if they were in control.
As it turns out, they ARE in control. The NY Times changed the headline for them.
If you’re wondering how President Trump is being viewed by so many Americans as a racist despite record-high prosperity for minorities, one needs only realize the people want everything framed for us. And how is it framed by progressive legacy media? It is framed to portray the President as racist.
This is why the three shootings over the last week have been tied to white supremacy even though only one of the shooters gave any indication of racism as a motive. White supremacy is how the left wants gun violence framed, because otherwise they’d have to address the sadness in gun-control utopia Chicago as 12 people were shot and killed over the weekend.
It works in the positive for progressives as well. A majority of Americans favor Medicare-for-All… until they find out what’s actually entailed by it. When they learn that Medicare-for-All means, as the name implies, Medicare for everyone whether they want it to replace their current health insurance or not, the support numbers plummet. How is this possible? How can people support something that’s going to have apocalyptic effects on their healthcare, the economy, and their taxes without actually knowing what’s in it? Because they trust how the media frames stories, and Medicare-for-All has been universally framed as positive by most legacy media outlets.
They just hope you won’t read the details, which is a reasonable assumption in modern America.
Fake news is a real danger, which is why I think it’s apropos to remind readers that we desperately need financial assistance to continue spreading the truth to the masses.
The left wants stories framed in ways that benefit them and harm conservatives. They’re willing to deny the truth in order to help promote their agenda. It’s incumbent on conservatives to fight for the truth because the truth is on our side.
We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.
[gravityform id=”2″ title=”true” description=”false”]